Our Corrupt Nuclear Regulator - CNSC

[Oscar]

Our Corrupt Nuclear Regulator - CNSC

CANADIAN NUCLEAR SAFETY COMMISSION (CNSC)

March 02, 2010

We caught the CNSC with their pants down on their first trip into Alberta. The CNSC repeatedly refused our community’s requests to come and explain the regulatory process yet we’ve now confirmed they’ve met with First Nations friends up to 500 km. away. Why don’t the people living closest to the proposed reactor site have the same rights as First Nations?

The CNSC introduced itself to the Peace Country the same way the nuclear industry did; by holding secret meetings to get select groups onside before they spoke to the public. After weeks of denial by the CNSC and our MP Chris Warkentin, the truth came out on February 16. The Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency (CEAA) confirmed that the CNSC and the CEAA met with First Nations bands during the past two years.

The CNSC and the CEAA should be commended for consulting people living so far away, but they must also be held accountable for refusing to meet with the people who are, and will be most affected by the nuclear proposal. The CNSC doesn’t want to come to our community because 85% of us are opposed to the nuclear project and we’re very well-informed on nuclear issues. We’re not a “willing host community” but the CNSC doesn’t want to hear that.

We have no way of knowing how many secret meetings they’ve held as this is the first time they were caught doing it. However, the first evidence we have of the CNSC’s involvement was a Whitecourt Star article from July 17, 2007. Reporter Chandra Lye writes: “He (Wayne Henuset) added that they intended to make a decision by the end of September but that the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission has asked them to indicate a preferred location by the end of July”.

The nuclear regulator shouldn’t be guiding the affairs of a private sector company prior to an application being filed. The end-of-July request by the CNSC didn’t make sense until we found out that the CNSC was revamping the regulations concerning new reactor construction at their September Hearings. It appears the CNSC wanted to process the application under the far less stringent regulations in place since the 1970s.

The CNSC and the AECB (Atomic Energy Control Board) before it, have always been far too cozy with industry. This was first brought to light during the B C Royal Commission on Uranium Mining. In the report, the B.C. Medical Association concluded: "Such a policy statement (from AECB), based on antiquated data and inadequate literature review, would be irresponsible coming from the nuclear industry, let alone the regulatory agency of that industry, However, as will become clear, it is difficult to ascertain where one ends and the other begins."

The CNSC and Bruce Power have worked together before to hide problems at the reactors. In March of 2000, tritium levels in groundwater at Bruce Power exceeded their operating limits because of “undetermined leakage”. This came at a bad time for Bruce Power as they were applying for a license renewal. The CNSC solved the problem for them by making a "special provision" to increase the operating limit by 500%. By December 2001, test results from groundwater monitoring wells had exceeded even the new levels enacted by the CNSC.

The CNSC and the nuclear industry have an incestuous and co-dependent relationship. Employees routinely move back and forth and the CNSC gets half its funding from the license fees it charges the companies it regulates. There’s been a chorus of voices complaining than the CNSC panders to industry, to the exclusion of the public.

To counter these accusations, the CNSC commissioned a report into the matter by the Institute on Governance. The report confirmed our concerns and was critical of the CNSC. According to a Globe and Mail article: "Canada's nuclear-safety watchdog appears to be too cozy with the industry it's supposed to monitor, suggests an independent report. The study ordered by the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission (CNSC), an independent federal government agency that regulates the use of nuclear energy and material, cites long-standing complaints that the regulator focuses far more on the companies it licenses than on concerned lobby groups or citizens. The commission has in the past put more focus on communicating with licensees than with non-government organizations and the broader public”. (October 9, 2007)

Cameco’s 2004 environmental (EA) assessment to process enriched uranium in Port Hope gave us a first-hand look at the CNSC in bed with the industry. The CNSC kept dismissing our concerns about the project in favour of Cameco until we submitted a list of 623 questions. Port Hope Council finally woke up and hired consultants Jacques Whitford to Peer Review the EA. Jacques Whitford raised the same concerns we did and submitted 200 questions to Cameco.

Cameco refused to answer the 65 most important questions which triggered a scathing report by Jacques Whitford on Cameco’s EA including these conclusions:

"CNSC staff has not followed the directives of the CNSC Commission with regard to health issues, have not followed the CNSC’s Guidelines or the requirements of the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act".

"Cameco states, and the CNSC appears to accept, that it was not necessary to determine the significance of environmental effects, when clearly the Act requires a determination of significance for all adverse environmental effects of the project".

"Cameco and the CNSC are not preparing or providing information that the (CNSC) Guidelines require. The Municipality of Port Hope needs more information with respect to potential threats, response capabilities and security requirements".

The CNSC tries to limit the community’s participation in hearings and consultations wherever possible because our increasing knowledge allows us to expose the CNSC’s failures to protect us. For instance, it was a community group in Port Hope that informed the Commissioners that the Fire Department was unable to fight radiological fires despite having two nuclear facilities in Town.. They would have to let the fire burn for two to three hours while a crew drove out from Toronto. The CNSC Staff didn’t include anything about this in their report.

The CNSC staff disagreed with us and hired Consultant Cyril Hare to determine the adequacy of fire protection at Cameco and Zircatec. The report concluded: "At the present time, Zircatec (and Cameco) must rely on the Port Hope Fire Department to control and extinguish fires in its property. The Port Hope Fire Department is not equipped, trained or staffed to deal with the worst case emergency that could occur at Zircatec (or Cameco)”. (Cyril Hare Report, 2005)

The recent accident at Bruce Power in Ontario where 214 workers were exposed to alpha radiation is another illustration of the CNSC’s lack of preparation in the event of an accident. There is only one lab in all of Canada capable of testing these workers and it can only process two samples per day. Some of these people will have to wait four months to be tested. This was a relatively small accident. What would we do if thousands were exposed in a serious accident?

If you expect fairness and transparency from the upcoming environmental assessment, you’ll be very disappointed. The CNSC has already shown its true colours by holding secret meetings and refusing to come to the community that is most impacted by this project. Now, the CNSC is refusing to answer our questions. How’s that for fairness and transparency so far?

DIGGING OUT THE TRUTH

The following events took place after we received an e-mail from a First Nations friend telling us about the meeting they held with the CNSC and the CEAA. You’ll notice that some of the messages from Federal agencies are still contradicting each other concerning their participation. It looks like its going to take a while longer to shake the complete truth out of them.

February 1 – We attended MP Chris Warkentin’s public meeting and raised our concerns about the CNSC’s conduct. Mr. Warkentin assured us that the CNSC had not met with any First Nations bands in the Peace Country. We asked him to check with the CNSC and to report back to us at a subsequent meeting.

February 9 – MP Chris Warkentin told MD of Northern Lights Council that the CNSC had not met with First Nations bands.

February 13 – Eleven members of our groups met with MP Warkentin who once again assured us that the CNSC had not met with First Nations bands. He admonished us for “spreading false information as the transcript from the meeting states: Pat, you’re running around telling people that the Canadian Nuclear Commission has been out talking to First Nations communities. I have contacted since that Town Hall meeting (February 1) every First Nation community that you said that they had been in consultation with. I contacted the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission. I have contacted Bruce Power. I will be absolutely clear. I have not found a single person either in this community or in Ottawa that can confirm that the CNSC was here in the Peace River area”. We told him we believed our information and that he should keep checking.

February 16 – We received the following message from the CEAA in response to our February 14 query. “In response to your question below, the meeting you are referring to was organized at the request of the Dene Tha' FN as well as the Duncan's FN to discuss general issues related to the requirements of the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act and the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission, including matters related to FN involvement in these review processes, should a project come forward”. (Steve Burgess, Executive Director, CEAA)

February 17 – MP Warkentin sent this message: “In doing additional follow-up on the issue of consultations I now have information that the CNSC has, in fact, been to the Peace Country to speak with First Nation’s communities. I have requested complete details of the dates and times of these meetings and will supply them to you”.

February 23 – We were a little confused when we got this e-mail from CEAA. “I've asked my staff to look into the facts of this situation before I respond, as there seems to be some disagreement as to whether meetings have occurred. I'll get back to you as soon as I can, once I have a clear picture of the situation”. (Steve Burgess, Executive Director, CEAA)

February 24 – The CEAA responded again. “The meeting was organized at the request of both the Dene Tha' and Duncan First Nations in order to discuss general issues related to the requirements of the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act and the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission Act”. (Steve Burgess, Executive Director, CEAA)

February 24 – MP Warkentin sent us the list of meetings the CNSC held with First Nations bands in the last two years including: “April 23, 2009: in Edmonton Alberta, the CNSC and representatives of the National Energy Board met with leadership of the Little Red River Cree First Nation to discuss the role of our particular organizations, as well as the environmental assessment and regulatory process for new nuclear power plants”.

February 25 – We got this e-mail from the National Energy Board contradicting the information Mr. Warkentin sent us the day before. “The National Energy Board (NEB) is an independent federal agency responsible for regulating international and interprovincial aspects of the oil, gas and electric utility industries. We do not regulate Nuclear Power in any way, and would not be holding meetings with First Nations in Northern Alberta on this topic”.

Mr. Warkentin informed us he was trying to set up a meeting with the CNSC as per the following message: “At the meeting I assured you that if CNSC had been undertaking information meetings in the Peace Country with First Nation’s communities I would insist that they hold meetings in the local community as well. I have therefore requested that CNSC hold a meeting to provide information about the regulatory framework and application process for future development in the local area”.

It’s hard to believe anything from any of the three levels of government after the past few months. The nuclear regulator is slithering around holding secret meetings and lying about them. The Province, through Alberta Transportation, tried to silence our opposition by targeting our anti-nuclear signs. Our Municipal Council will not let us appear in front of them, nor will they educate the community and conduct a survey as they promised.

Our governments, the nuclear regulator and most of the media are working in unison to shove this nuclear project down our throats. Their actions have been unethical and illegal in some cases. We will continue to expose and publish the names of officials who are lying to us and withholding our rights. We will not accept being treated this way! Would you?

Pat McNamara
Weberville Area Connection
entwork@hotmail.com